TexasCHLforum.com

Not sure if this has made the rounds here or not. If so, apologies, I didn't see it.

Open Carry Texas' honcho. CJ Grisham, sued the city of Temple and police. This week most of that was dismissed. Still pending is his son's lawsuit(s) which the judge declined to dismiss, saying a summary judgement to close those issues was the most appropriate.

http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headli ... 73332.html

Interesting that following his dustup with Temple police he pretty much proved you can run around with a rifle most anywhere and get away with it, even if you're carrying the rifle with an agenda.

Also interesting to learn, after coming up on 60 orbits around the solar bonfire, that you don't necessarily have to break any laws to telegraph suspicious intent.

No, wait, now that I think about it, I learned that a long time ago. Mom could always tell when I was up to something.

treadlightly wrote:Not sure if this has made the rounds here or not. If so, apologies, I didn't see it.

Open Carry Texas' honcho. CJ Grisham, sued the city of Temple and police. This week most of that was dismissed. Still pending is his son's lawsuit(s) which the judge declined to dismiss, saying a summary judgement to close those issues was the most appropriate.

http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headli ... 73332.html

Interesting that following his dustup with Temple police he pretty much proved you can run around with a rifle most anywhere and get away with it, even if you're carrying the rifle with an agenda.

Also interesting to learn, after coming up on 60 orbits around the solar bonfire, that you don't necessarily have to break any laws to telegraph suspicious intent.

No, wait, now that I think about it, I learned that a long time ago. Mom could always tell when I was up to something.

You do know that he was convicted in the incident he was suing over? I have also never heard of "suspicious intent" ever being used or defined in any law or legal proceeding here in Texas so ..........

Basicly I guess I'm just not sure what you are trying to convey with your post. CJ proved that yes you do have to stop and comply with lawful orders even if you think they are wrong. That obviously absurd lawsuits tend to get thrown out.

EEllis wrote:

treadlightly wrote:Not sure if this has made the rounds here or not. If so, apologies, I didn't see it.

Open Carry Texas' honcho. CJ Grisham, sued the city of Temple and police. This week most of that was dismissed. Still pending is his son's lawsuit(s) which the judge declined to dismiss, saying a summary judgement to close those issues was the most appropriate.

http://www.kwtx.com/ourtown/home/headli ... 73332.html

Interesting that following his dustup with Temple police he pretty much proved you can run around with a rifle most anywhere and get away with it, even if you're carrying the rifle with an agenda.

Also interesting to learn, after coming up on 60 orbits around the solar bonfire, that you don't necessarily have to break any laws to telegraph suspicious intent.

No, wait, now that I think about it, I learned that a long time ago. Mom could always tell when I was up to something.

You do know that he was convicted in the incident he was suing over? I have also never heard of "suspicious intent" ever being used or defined in any law or legal proceeding here in Texas so ..........

Basicly I guess I'm just not sure what you are trying to convey with your post. CJ proved that yes you do have to stop and comply with lawful orders even if you think they are wrong. That obviously absurd lawsuits tend to get thrown out.

He was eventually convicted... took them 2 tries... I've always thought miss-trials due to not enough jurors to convict/dead-lock should be the equivalent of not guilty or at least double jeopardy should apply.

EEllis wrote:You do know that he was convicted in the incident he was suing over? I have also never heard of "suspicious intent" ever being used or defined in any law or legal proceeding here in Texas so ..........

Basicly I guess I'm just not sure what you are trying to convey with your post. CJ proved that yes you do have to stop and comply with lawful orders even if you think they are wrong. That obviously absurd lawsuits tend to get thrown out.

We're on the same page, I imagine. My tongue wasn't visibly enough in cheek. I mean no one disrespect, not even Mr. Grisham, but the lawsuits were the wrong remedy, if indeed a remedy were necessary. Seeking cash for alleged infringement? Almost seems like auctioning the Second Amendment.

It was also just plain weird, his later protests for open carry by demonstrating in an alarming way that open carry is already legal in some form. I'm certain many folks could have traded places with Mr. Grisham on the day of his arrest and not had a confrontation.

As to what I was trying to convey in my post, merely the news of Grisham's failed lawsuits. With luck, he'll be able to make his peace with that outcome, and if he persists in running for State office, hopefully his district will make the right decision.

For the record, I support the uninfringed right to keep and bear, without license, rifles and shotguns. I believe my word processor would be the only weapon I would need to fight any change in that law, and I would indeed fight.

I also support Constitutional carry and possession of just about anything else - but I find I adapt to shall-issue licensing.

Pariah3j wrote:... I've always thought miss-trials due to not enough jurors to convict/dead-lock should be the equivalent of not guilty or at least double jeopardy should apply.

I agree wholeheartedly! The state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, then jeopardy should attach and there should be no second trial. The jury is under no compulsion to render a verdict, if they are unable to do so.

Chas

Both the defendant and the People are entitled to a fair trial. While it may be that no particular jury must render a verdict, all parties ought to be entitled to a verdict in a dispute, which is what a trial is for, even if it is dismissal. I would be careful not to hamstring the prosecution by any kind of "one strike" rule. That would place way too much emphasis on jury selection.

As far as these dismissals go, "obviously absurd" is not one of the grounds for dismissal. The court has to go through the pleadings and arguments to decide if there are justiciable claims properly pleaded. My guess is the complaint failed to state a claim under the rules. In CA, where I practiced, those are reached by demurrer, and I believe in the Federal Courts by Motion to Dismiss. Maybe that is the same in Texas. It is not an adjudication "on the merits," IIRC.

In my experience, it is very difficult to reach a proper evaluation about a case like this and its determination without review of the pleadings and order/judgment.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:... I've always thought miss-trials due to not enough jurors to convict/dead-lock should be the equivalent of not guilty or at least double jeopardy should apply.

I agree wholeheartedly! The state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, then jeopardy should attach and there should be no second trial. The jury is under no compulsion to render a verdict, if they are unable to do so.

Chas

From what I've read, I think CJ got a raw deal at the criminal trial. Even though he may not be the most sympathetic defendant, the charges seem kind of arbitrary.

But you always take that chance when you push the limits. I think if you're going to open carry to make a point, you have to be prepared for a lousy verdict. I like to think justice is done in the vast majority of criminal trials, but there are exceptions. This is why I won't open carry at the Dallas Zoo next year, but I might at the Fort Worth Zoo (which is definitely NOT an Amusement Park).

treadlightly wrote: Interesting that following his dustup with Temple police he pretty much proved you can run around with a rifle most anywhere and get away with it, even if you're carrying the rifle with an agenda.

That's not my take away. He was stopped and court ruled that stopping him was legal. And the subsequent arrest and more than that - the subsequent criminal trials - certainly proved that in Temple they'll find something that sticks. The fact that his civil suits have been dismissed further weight the issue. To me it reads that if you're carrying a rifle in a displeasing (if peaceful) manner, you're subject to some level of interrogation at a minimum. Perhaps that's appropriate in this day and age, but I'm not sure that it's in line with the intent of the 2nd amendment.

What was the son arrested for?

cb1000rider wrote: What was the son arrested for?

I don't believe he was. The wife and son sued for the distress, or whatever, that CJ's arrest caused them.

JALLEN wrote: As far as these dismissals go, "obviously absurd" is not one of the grounds for dismissal.

When something is this absurd it seems to me it's usually pretty easy to find a valid reason for dismissal. It seems in the sons case it will just be a different court that dismisses it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:... I've always thought miss-trials due to not enough jurors to convict/dead-lock should be the equivalent of not guilty or at least double jeopardy should apply.

I agree wholeheartedly! The state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, then jeopardy should attach and there should be no second trial. The jury is under no compulsion to render a verdict, if they are unable to do so.

Chas

But that would mean one juror can ignore facts and then someone is innocent? In this particular case we have one juror who voted for acquittal and then goes out and lies in interviews about how it was the opposite one juror voting for conviction. the second jury took 2 hours to convict and with only one juror deadlocking the first. Well it smells more of the juror being an issue that the state not "proving" something. It also seem to be a self regulating issue. 5 to 1 to convict then they retried. If those numbers were reversed I expect retrial would be so rare as almost unheard of. Nothing is perfect and it may be abused but this case doesn't look like abuse to me. Of course my personal feelings about CJ may have some effect on my viewpoint. I don't think they do but...........

EEllis wrote:But that would mean one juror can ignore facts and then someone is innocent?

Technically the entire jury can decide to convict or not entirely independent of evidence. Jury nullification is a thing, even if judges will never tell a jury that.

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:... I've always thought miss-trials due to not enough jurors to convict/dead-lock should be the equivalent of not guilty or at least double jeopardy should apply.

I agree wholeheartedly! The state's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, then jeopardy should attach and there should be no second trial. The jury is under no compulsion to render a verdict, if they are unable to do so.

Chas

But that would mean one juror can ignore facts and then someone is innocent? In this particular case we have one juror who voted for acquittal and then goes out and lies in interviews about how it was the opposite one juror voting for conviction. the second jury took 2 hours to convict and with only one juror deadlocking the first. Well it smells more of the juror being an issue that the state not "proving" something. It also seem to be a self regulating issue. 5 to 1 to convict then they retried. If those numbers were reversed I expect retrial would be so rare as almost unheard of. Nothing is perfect and it may be abused but this case doesn't look like abuse to me. Of course my personal feelings about CJ may have some effect on my viewpoint. I don't think they do but...........

And one juror could vote to convict, while 11 vote to acquit. I'm not talking about the Grisham case, I'm talking about a seriously flawed jury system. Yes, jurors can and do ignore the evidence, as well as the lack of evidence. If the prosecution cannot pick a good jury, then that's their fault. The State has unlimited resources and few defendants enjoy the luxury of being able to fully fund a defense two or three times. A retrial also lets the State have a practice run which gives it a distinct advantage.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
And one juror could vote to convict, while 11 vote to acquit. I'm not talking about the Grisham case, I'm talking about a seriously flawed jury system. Yes, jurors can and do ignore the evidence, as well as the lack of evidence. If the prosecution cannot pick a good jury, then that's their fault. The State has unlimited resources and few defendants enjoy the luxury of being able to fully fund a defense two or three times. A retrial also lets the State have a practice run which gives it a distinct advantage.

Chas.

I can see your point I'm just not sure it overweighs the benefit to the public but shockingly no one is lining up to hear my opinion anyway.

I think to many people, especially those that work for the government, overlook this simple fact that Charles mentioned.

The State has unlimited resources and few defendants enjoy the luxury of being able to fully fund a defense two or three times. A retrial also lets the State have a practice run which gives it a distinct advantage.

People that live off of other people's money and work within the system have trouble seeing any flaw in the system in which they work. Some tend to think it's the burden of one to prove their innocence when in fact, it's the state's job to prove they are guilty. The state shouldn't have unlimited mulligans. With the resources, other people's money, they shouldn't get any mulligans. They should do their job sufficiently the first time.

As far as one outweighing the other. Is it better that a guilty man go free or for an innocent man to lose his liberty or go bankrupt because the state has plenty of other people's money and multiple mulligans?